[ralfy]

Absolutely. Obviously some have, but $100/bbl can't even get Americans to kick the habit. And what with how your industry is revving up new production, we probably aren't going to get the $200/bbl we really need.

I think that the jury is still out on this. Surely with oil above 125$ there IS a limit for economic growth. 200$/bbl??
I doubt we see that too, but given any number of geopolitical Black Swans and I daresay that it just might be possible for that to happen. We need to get down the road a piece to really grasp what decline will be and how that plays out before we rule out 200$ Oil.

Think back not too long ago and acknowledge what folks thought about 100$+/bbl oil!

Indeed! I remember the "Four Corners" documentary in 2006, where it was reported that various energy group officials and experts argued that in the near future oil prices would drop to less than $30 a barrel and production easily breach 100 Mb/d or so. I think even Saudi Arabia argued in 2009 that by 2011 they would easily exceed 15 Mb/d.

And then there are geopolitical issues such as the petrodollar, the use of the U.S. military and others to attack or destabilize various countries, etc., not to mention financiers trying to make bloated levels of credit rise while the effects of environmental damage and global warming set in.

[John_A]

The point about "finding new stuff" is right and "growth in reserves", but the problem is production rate, something that for some reason you cannot or will not understand.

Oh you have got to be kidding. Two of the largest production rate oil fields in the Western Hemisphere got turned on just a few years ago and now is expected to do THIS, of COURSE it is about production rate. Are you claiming that this has changed your view, now that old oil producing regions are capable of such change?

[Pops]

not likely all regions are capable of that, not likely many, in fact to this point, only 14 counties in the US are doing any.

And those in N Dakota are already looking a little pale, click over to the Bakken thread for pictures.

[ralfy]

Oh you have got to be kidding. Two of the largest production rate oil fields in the Western Hemisphere got turned on just a few years ago and now is expected to do THIS, of COURSE it is about production rate. Are you claiming that this has changed your view, now that old oil producing regions are capable of such change?

What you presented does not counter any of my arguments and was explained to you in another thread and in my message above. The IEA argues that total energy produced will go up only if all crude oil producers reach maximum depletion rate and make use of all URRs, thus allowing for fields yet to be found and developed to plateau. According to Aleklett, producers usually don't reach max. depletion rate and reach a production plateau that's lower than what the IEA hopes will be achieved. Given that, crude oil production will drop and pull down unconventional production.

To make matters worse, total energy produced from all oil and gas sources, even with max. depletion rate attained, will be only 9 pct during the next two decades. That's why the IEA also argues that in addition to maximum production, economies have to cut down oil consumption by more than 50 pct, from a 2-pct increase each year for the last three decades to less than 0.7 pct a year. In order to make up for the remaining demand, renewable energy has to be employed. The IEA adds that this has to take place in any event because the world faces not just peak oil but also global warming.

So, you see, the problem is still production rate and not reserves, just as peak oil proponents have been saying. Even with "abundant resources" the production rate expected from all oil and gas resources will still not be enough to meet an expected 2-pct increase in energy demand per year (the ave. for the past three decades). It will allow only for a 0.7-pct increase.

The catch, as pointed out several times in this thread and in the other, is that in order to meet even that 0.7-pct increase per annum, the IEA argues that there will have to be strong government policies. That means government intervention, governments coordinating with each other, producers required to maximize production even with lower profits, and more businesses moving quickly to renewable energy.

This explains why the chief economist who discusses the report with the public, Fatih Birol, states in one TV interview that this is a "tall order" for the world economy, as we will have to find out ways to maintain energy demand equivalent to one Saudi Arabia every seven years. In fact, in one radio interview:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... transcript

he states that he is not confident that governments are prepared or are even preparing to face these challenges, especially given rising resource demand from the rest of the world.

I concur. When I look at what has happened the last few decades, I see the complete opposite of what the IEA argues are needed to deal with peak oil and global warming.

[SamInNebraska]

Once upon a time I figured peak oil might cause a recession. And instead, it turned out that peak oil wasn't nearly as effective at doing that as idiot consumers treating their homes like ATM machines.

I still think peak oil will cause a recession, but that demand destruction can easily exceed natural field declines, and idiot financial shenanigans can mask the effects so well those who want to believe peak oil will cause everything from a delay in the arrival of Santa Claus to the decline in the quality of rock and roll music will always be able to manufacture the correlation.

Just like this.

[John_A]

So, you see, the problem is still production rate and not reserves, just as peak oil proponents have been saying. Even with "abundant resources" the production rate expected from all oil and gas resources will still not be enough to meet an expected 2-pct increase in energy demand per year (the ave. for the past three decades). It will allow only for a 0.7-pct increase.

Peak oil proponents, like Hubbert, talked about not only production rate and reserves but undiscovered resources as well. And so do the EIA and IEA.

And expectations in the future are just that, they are no more required to be met than they are required to be accurate. You expect X%, someone else expects -X%, in neither case is the expectation relevant. Hubbert expected the world to only make 12 billion barrels a year in production. Oops. Colin Campbell expected expected oil production be only 35 million/day in 2013. Oops.

Those expectations you mention, how many of these projections included recessions, and how many? 1? 2? 3? If what is "expected" can't even encompass the idea of a normal business cycle, of what use is it?

[ralfy]

Peak oil proponents, like Hubbert, talked about not only production rate and reserves but undiscovered resources as well. And so do the EIA and IEA.

And expectations in the future are just that, they are no more required to be met than they are required to be accurate. You expect X%, someone else expects -X%, in neither case is the expectation relevant. Hubbert expected the world to only make 12 billion barrels a year in production. Oops. Colin Campbell expected expected oil production be only 35 million/day in 2013. Oops.

Those expectations you mention, how many of these projections included recessions, and how many? 1? 2? 3? If what is "expected" can't even encompass the idea of a normal business cycle, of what use is it?

As explained to you in this thread and in another, "peak oil proponents" did "talk about,...'undiscovered' resources." The problem is that contrary to your claims they did not equate them with high production rates. The IEA scenario that you just presented and that has been explained to you repeatedly shows that even with government intervention and maximum depletion rates energy from oil and gas will increase by only 9 pct for the next two decades, and that assumes that producers reach max. depletion rates.

Next, as explained to you once more, there are proponents who argued that oil production would drop and prices would rise to $200 a barrel, but there are others who insisted that oil production would soar and that prices would drop to $20 a barrel. If any, what should concern you is not the former but the latter. Why? Because your last paragraph explain why oil prices have not reached $200 a barrel and yet, even with a tripling of prices, oil consumption for the rest of the world not only kept rising but negated demand destruction in the U.S., EU, and Japan due to economic crisis. And together with high oil prices we've also seen high food prices, unemployment, and generally a continuation of the recession. So much for "normal business cycles"!

[ralfy]

Once upon a time I figured peak oil might cause a recession. And instead, it turned out that peak oil wasn't nearly as effective at doing that as idiot consumers treating their homes like ATM machines.

I still think peak oil will cause a recession, but that demand destruction can easily exceed natural field declines, and idiot financial shenanigans can mask the effects so well those who want to believe peak oil will cause everything from a delay in the arrival of Santa Claus to the decline in the quality of rock and roll music will always be able to manufacture the correlation.

Just like this.

But even with a tripling of prices, oil consumption has not only been rising for the rest of the world but exceeding demand destruction in the U.S., EU, and Japan. Meanwhile, even with high oil prices, claims made before 2005 of high conventional production has not taken place.

[John_A]

As explained to you in this thread and in another, "peak oil proponents" did "talk about,...'undiscovered' resources." The problem is that contrary to your claims they did not equate them with high production rates.

"High" is relative term, the IEA claimed they were high enough to continue increasing liquid fuels production. If that is high enough for the IEA, it is high enough for me.

The IEA scenario that you just presented and that has been explained to you repeatedly shows that even with government intervention and maximum depletion rates energy from oil and gas will increase by only 9 pct for the next two decades, and that assumes that producers reach max. depletion rates.

You claiming something and pretending it is an explanation is expected, and incorrect. If you wish to present your interpretation of events, fine, but please don't confuse it with an explanation as easy to read and understand as either the projections of the official agencies we are discussing or their cost/supply curves which still stands unrefuted.

The IEA says that production climbs for some time in the future, just as the EIA IEO report does. While I understand it is necessary for us amateurs and forum denizens to try and talk about the experts when they say something we do not agree with, your doing it is neither an explanation nor relevant based on your and my experience in these matters. You want to predict stuff for the world, and think you are right? Go get a job doing it, then come back and tell us about it, we would all love to hear from an expert on the topic. Until then, you can expect Santa Claus to show up on time, but I am not required to buy into your belief system.

[ralfy]

"High" is relative term, the IEA claimed they were high enough to continue increasing liquid fuels production. If that is high enough for the IEA, it is high enough for me.

Unfortunately, your argument works both ways.

You claiming something and pretending it is an explanation is expected, and incorrect. If you wish to present your interpretation of events, fine, but please don't confuse it with an explanation as easy to read and understand as either the projections of the official agencies we are discussing or their cost/supply curves which still stands unrefuted.

No, I didn't pretend anything. I and others countered all of your arguments in various threads. The fact that you gave up and posted the same errors in other threads says a lot. A good example involves your last point, which was discussed in another thread and which you abandoned.

The IEA says that production climbs for some time in the future, just as the EIA IEO report does. While I understand it is necessary for us amateurs and forum denizens to try and talk about the experts when they say something we do not agree with, your doing it is neither an explanation nor relevant based on your and my experience in these matters. You want to predict stuff for the world, and think you are right? Go get a job doing it, then come back and tell us about it, we would all love to hear from an expert on the topic. Until then, you can expect Santa Claus to show up on time, but I am not required to buy into your belief system.

Wrong again. Read what I wrote about the IEA scenarios in this thread and in the other.

Prediction? The IEA was making a forecast based on conditions that need to be met. Read the report for more details.

This is one of many more examples where you refer to reports that you did not read, as well as your lack of knowledge of even the basic points not only of peak oil but even of economics.